>>58892713>The claim was never "she is a slutSee
>>58892051>it was "she uses sex appeal"You're splitting hairs and you guys haven't even defined what counts as sex appeal and can't even stay consistent with what counts as sex appeal.
>He simply redefined "using sex appeal" as "Well that must mean there are clips of her being a slut then!!!" There could be, but that's not the point.And again, it's his burden of proof to provide evidence of her deliberately using her sex appeal, which again, you guys can't seem to decide on whether it's solely based on her model or her behaviour. Pick one.
>>58892955>I am under no such obligation.You are under every obligation to provide proof of your claim. Don't try to weasel your way out of this, you slimy rat.
>The original claim was that vtubers bank on sex appeal, NOT sluttiness,Splitting hairs.
>he's lumping me in with a completely different anon and is obsessed with me providing a clip of something that he's going to move the goal posts onYeah, because, again, it's your burden of proof to provide evidence of your claim. So, why don't you just show a fucking clip if it's that easy to prove him wrong? I'm failing to see why you can't just do that.
>I am providing no such clip until he acknowledges or denies that Kaela has gap moeOkay, so, how are you defining sex appeal? Because you seem to keep flip-flopping between it solely having to do with the character model and whether the vtuber themselves intentionally exploits their own sex appeal. So, which is it?! Be clear about it. Fuck.
>>58893628>As much of a faggot at this dude isOh, shut up, faggot. Don't even trying fucking try pulling that shit, you dumb cunt.
